alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01006101.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/61

---

Action brought on 1 July 2019 — Mattina v Parliament

(Case T-440/19)

(2019/C 295/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Vincenzo Mattina (Buonabitacolo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected to the United States House of 
        Representatives and served from January 3, 1947, to January 3, 1953, 
        until he was elected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the Senate 
        where he served from January 3, 1953, to December 22, 1960;
Whereas on November 8, 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected as the 35th 
        President of the United States; and
Whereas on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy was sworn in as President of the 
        United States and delivered his inaugural address at 12:51pm, a speech 
        that served as a clarion call to service for the Nation: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR AN EVENT HONORING 
              PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

    The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to be used 
on January 20, 2011, for a ceremony in honor of the 50th anniversary of 
the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy. Physical 
preparations for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried out in 
accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol.

            Passed the Senate January 5, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. CON. RES. 2

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for an event marking 
  the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of President John F. 
                                Kennedy.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934; and                               
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ James Hennen                                              
| | James Hennen                                                  
| | Senior Vice President of
 Finance and
 Chief Financial Officer
| | July 22,
 2010                                                

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Annual Report of Hewitt
Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ John J. Park       
|                        |  |     |  | John J. Park           
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by
Hewitt Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification
is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ALSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6024.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 3, 2011.

Anthony Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*988PER CURIAM:

Anthony Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion to remand for resentencing and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                              CURAGEN CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                  Three Months Ended
                                                                                        March 31,
                                                                      --------------------------------------
                                                                           1999                     1998
                                                                      --------------            ------------
<S>                                                                   <C>                       <C> 
Net loss                                                                 ($7,206,927)            ($3,167,513)
Preferred dividends                                                              -                  (508,435)
                                                                      --------------            ------------
                                                          
Net loss attributable to common stockholders                             ($7,206,927)            ($3,675,948)
                                                                      ==============            ============
                                                          
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to      
   common stockholders                                                       $ (0.54)           $      (0.40)
                                                                      ==============            ============
                                                          
Weighted average number of shares used in computing       
   basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to   
   common stockholders                                                    13,402,421               9,187,491
                                                                      ==============            ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION OF DR. WERNER BRANDT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SAP AG

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SAP AG (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2013
(the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | 
|Date March 21, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Dr. Werner Brandt |  | 

| |  |  |  |        |  |                         |  | 
| |  |  |  | ------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Dr. Werner Brandt       |  | 
| |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15624]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4506-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]


Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4506-DR), dated March 30, 
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, MaryAnn 
Tierney, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Janice P. Barlow as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-15624 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00066-CR

IN RE LOWELL QUINCY GREEN

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petitions for writ of mandamus is denied.1

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

 

1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus lack proof of service on any of the parties listed in his 

petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all 

parties and must contain proof of service. Id. at R. 9.5. Here, relator has not provided a certificate of service 

indicating that he has served his petition on the respondents. However, to expedite these matters, we 

invoke Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend the service requirement. Id. at R. 2.
In re Green Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed March 22, 2017

[OT06]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15319]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA-2021-035]


Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board members

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of members.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: I am announcing that I have appointed new members to NARA's 
Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board. The board 
members are: Debra Steidel Wall, Deputy Archivist of the United States; 
William J. Bosanko, Chief Operating Officer; Micah M. Cheatham, Chief 
of Management and Administration; and Valorie F. Findlater, Chief Human 
Capital Officer. These appointments supersede all previous 
appointments.

DATES: These appointments are effective on July 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: National Archives and Records Administration, 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valorie Findlater, Chief Human Capital 
Officer, by mail at Office of Human Capital, National Archives and 
Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, Maryland 
20740, or by telephone at 301.837.3754.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The 
Board reviews a supervisor's initial appraisal of a senior executive's 
performance and recommends final action to the appointing authority 
regarding matters related to senior executive performance.

David S. Ferriero,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2021-15319 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
#### Margarita Cardenas DE CASTANEDA; Francisco Castaneda Cardenas; Huber Castaneda Cardenas; Reyna Castaneda Cardenas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73072.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2011.

Filed July 13, 2011.

Margarita Cardenas De Castaneda, Cos-ta Mesa, CA, pro se.

Isaiah Zachary Weedn, Esquire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Robert Scott Gerber, Es*321quire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.

Francisco Castaneda Cardenas, Ontario, CA, pro se.

Huber Castaneda Cardenas, Ontario, CA, pro se.

Reyna Castaneda Cardenas, Ontario, CA, pro se.

Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Margarita Cardenas de Castaneda and three of her children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a BIA decision denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Petitioners failed to exhaust their sole claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, by raising that issue before the BIA in a motion to reopen. As a prudential matter, when such claims relate to attorney conduct that occurred prior to and during the removal proceedings, as they do here, “the BIA [is] the appropriate body to first pass on the claims in order to generate a proper record for review.” *Puga v. Chertoff,*488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2007). Though petitioners may not have realized they had such a claim until their new counsel was appointed, the period to file a motion to reopen may be equitably tolled during periods where petitioners are receiving ineffective assistance of counsel. *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore deny the petition.

DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2020378EN.01002801.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-46/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid scheme - Definition of ‘permanent grasslands’ - Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Integrated administration and control system - Key controls - Regulation No 1306/2013 - Duty to state reasons)

(2020/C 378/33)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018, L 298, p. 34) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year.

| 2. | The action is dismissed for the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed for the remainder.

| 3. | The European Commission and the Hellenic Republic shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission and the Hellenic Republic shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---